You must log in or register to comment.
The bear is honest, either it eats you or it fucks off. The bear would never pretend to be friendly to gain your trust, or pretend to fuck off and instead stalk you for days. I can more accurately surmise a bears intentions than i can for any random man because all the bear could possibly want out of me is a meager amount of food.
Men getting angry about this are being upset by the possibility that they could potentially be considered threatening, by a completely uninformed third party nonetheless. And their chosen recourse is to demonstrate threatening behavior.
Some men are real snowflakes tbh
I’m a man and I endorse this message.
One thing about being a man is other men drop their guards around you and say the things they believe about their roles regarding women and masculinity. In my experience, most men are fine. Many are confused about who they are and their place in the world but do their best to be good people. Other men are just rotten, selfish, and/or broken people for many reasons. They’re often victims of abuse who perpetuate that abuse.
Some, though, are also confused and do their best, but what their best looks like is informed by people like Andrew Tate and Jordan Peterson. They believe women are somehow subhuman and that treating them as such is natural, right, and good. They believe in a social hierarchy and that might makes right. These are the men to worry about. The bad men I mentioned before generally know they’re bad or are broken enough that one can notice. These guys, though, appear normal but will absolutely fuck you over to get what they believe they deserve, all the while patting themselves on the back for being such an upstanding person who is “just enforcing the natural order”.
That’s why I’d also choose the bear.
Ugh. I hate it when some misogynistic asshole assumes I agree with his views on women because I have the same downstairs anatomy as he does. Fuck you and stop “🙄 women…” around me. You’d be the first one to whine about a woman doing the same thing about men.
Animals fear men for a reason. Men’s BO triggers an acute fear response in rabbits, guinea pigs, rats, mice and hamsters. This experiment did require the animal to be sacrificed, hence why it only involves common laboratory animals.
Anyway. They noticed men would underestimate the suffering of a laboratory animal. They already knew that prey animals hide their pain when they are scared. This is to make them less of an easy target for birds of prey to hunt. Because a limping rabbit, is a much easier meal.
The reason why there was a difference in welfare scoring done by men and women, was because this fear response got triggered. They did an experiment where they had shirts be worn by a man, woman or both for 24 hours. Found that the animals didn’t care for smells of women, but feared BO from men. It wasn’t a skill issue, or lack of empathy.
We also find in wolves who are used to humans, that they are more hostile towards strange men than they are towards strange women.
Testosterone is not a friendly hormone. It leads to being easily agitatated in all mammals. The only reason higher levels of androgens in humans, correlates with decreased aggressive behaviour is because when we produce more androgens, we produce more estrogens. Which in turn fascilitate communication between two regions in the brain that determine emotional impulses and whether or not the person acts on it. Hence why men are less aware of their emotions (it’s not just societal influence), more impulsive and more easily agitated/aggressive than women.
With bears you know what you can expect. And there are even things that can be done to save yourself. But with men? You never really know their intentions. It’s why women’s intuition exists at the level it does.
I try to understand your post, and my conclusion is that you arbitrarily chose to abbreviate “body odour”(?) as BO? That’s the only possibility I can think of what it could mean in order for the post to make sense
I don’t think it’s too arbitrary but may be generational and/or regional. I grew up with BO being a common abbreviation used for referring to body odor.
I used to think abbreviation overuse was the result of things like SMS and twitter, but then I found out O. J. Simpson had a nickname “The Juice” long ago, so I guess it’s just an American thing.
OJ was his initials which is also the initials of orange juice, it’s a somewhat creative nickname.
But it wouldn’t be if the initials were not already associated with the drink, hence me realising the thing goes way before the internet.
WW2 America was an abbreviation and acronym ridden hellhole. A real SNAFU.
Yes. Sorry. It was about body odour.
This is something I was not aware of. Love to look more into it. Can you link the papers that have studied this for further reading?
I found this paper and it seems to find some things that would agree with your statements and some that would not. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0018506X19304519
For me the big takeaway is that some men and women are violent and that is a brain type that is the root cause that just happens to express more in men than women.
And yet women are the emotional ones.
It’s on us as men to call out the bad men. They’re much more likely to listen to us. There’s one memorable time for me where I stepped in and the creep who was going to grope my friend tried bargaining with me about it. Many of them will shirk back when they see another man angry at them.
Remember all the women getting angry about the Pence Rule (never be alone with a woman who isn’t your wife) and some men saying they follow it because it’s a good idea because while most interactions aren’t going to result in false accusations any of them potentially could and the stakes are too high to leave it to chance? Remember all the claims that that is wildly misogynistic?
This bear thing is essentially the same.thing with the genders flipped.
anyone who even for a moment considers ‘bear’ is just showing they have absolutely no real experience in any sort of wild situation. Never choose an encounter with a bear, it is a predator and the apex predator of wherever you are to boot, its a ridiculous exercise meant to rile people up.
with this same argument id 100% take a dinosaur over any woman, because hell, she might knife me when I least expect it, but the allosaurus has a clear motive.
Anyone who is afraid of bears has absolutely no experience in the wild. It might do you some good to actually get that experience in the wild. A hike is much better for your brain than writing a post about how outraged you are that someone “made a ridiculous exercise meant to rile people up”
Being afraid is not the same as being aware of the dangers, I never once said anything about fear.
you definitely are… how did it go?
writing a post about how outraged you are that someone “made a ridiculous exercise meant to rile people up”
maybe you need a hike.
The fact that you don’t understand why women think the bear is safer is exactly why we’re picking it.
Let me spell it out for you - the bear will either kill me and eat me or leave me alone.
The man may try to rape me. And leave me alive with the suffering that results from that rape. And there’s a chance he may impregnate me and in many states in this country, I will not be able to abort it and will have to give birth to it, which is another assault on my body.
I would rather just be eaten. At least in that case the pain ends.
Heres a fun fact for you, Bears are known to eat their prey alive, so no. he wont kill you and eat you, it will be the other way around. so you will live the rest of your very, very short life being eaten alive by an apex predator.
It will still eventually end.
And the fact that you don’t understand this shows me you’re one of those people i never want to meet alone in the woods.i mean, if the baseline here is death, we should be including suicide. Nothing stops you from just killing yourself if you consider the end game to be death. Not that it’s any better. But it’s probably a lot less worse than it previously was.
Women here. I too would choose bear. Everytime. I’d rather get ripped apart than take a chance on a strange man.
Don’t blame you, I’d pick the bear too, and I’m a man.
This is the same thing I said but it’s downvoted. The only difference I can tell is that you mentioned you’re a woman.
There’s even other replies saying the same thing, but also specifically mentioning they’re written by a man. They’re not being downvoted en masse.
That’s pretty fucken stupid, huh?
quick edit: except for other guy replying to this, but he’s obviously being too much of an ally to get the upvote treatment, y’all are inconsistent.
but he’s obviously being too much of an ally to get the upvote treatment,
I take this as a sincere compliment, thank you!
Oh I knew what I was setting myself up for, but I wanted to contribute anyway.
Men need to be better about calling out the shitty misogynists. Because the thing is, misogynists inherently don’t care about women calling them out. When another man tells them to check themselves and shut the fuck up, they take notice.
I too would prefer the bear, and I say that as a man. My masculinity isn’t threatened by acknowledging there’s creepy men out there.
Yeah you can see that in action in this very thread. Anybody who mentions they’re a woman tends to get downvoted regardless of the actual content of their comment.
Like, homeboy you’re just doing a sexism.
This comment section has been extremely disappointing.
That is one thing I am trying to teach to my nephew and especially other adults. Best part is the teenager didn’t need to be taught. I am always caught a little off guard when I bring something up and he immediately says the obvious. I don’t have to fruitlessly explain why something is wrong. Silly quirks of Gen Z/alpha aside, I finally have some hope.
Everyone needs to call out shitty behavior. I get frustrated with people, even those I love, who don’t want to “get involved” and just ignore it. I don’t care if you think they are set in their ways, like that makes it ok. I don’t care if they get upset. Fuck that. There are always exceptional situations where doing so will get you beaten, killed, disowned, or worse, but even then I wonder if it is worth the cost sometimes.
All I ask is for people to try and be better. It takes time and a lot of it is confronting yourself. First step is to stop doing X bad behavior. Next is to take ownership of every time you think that way and question why. Getting in the mindset of “I can’t do X around “those” people or they get mad” is the wrong place to be in.
I do understand when people don’t want to put themselves in harms way or risk their life, but that’s a minority of the situations. Most of the time you can speak up and say it’s fucked up.
And the impact of outreach is really understated, and quite safe. I still remember how my perception of “well how was she dressed?” was totally shattered – some college students, men, were talking to us in high school, and they told us to think it through. No one goes “oh she’s showing a lot of her skin, I think I’ll rape her”. It’s so obvious in retrospect, but those guys really opened my eyes.
All I ask is for people to try and be better. It takes time and a lot of it is confronting yourself.
Exactly. I haven’t been perfect on this. I didn’t understand the #yesallwomen thing several years ago, and was hung up on “yeah but it’s not like all guys are bad”, until my sister really broke it down for me and explained her own experiences.
I’ve said terrible things out of insecurity and jealousy before, and my friends made it clear that yeah it was fucked for me to say, but it was important to recognize it and move past it. I didn’t have to feel guilty forever, but the important part was understanding that what I did was not okay. And that really helped me learn from my mistakes without feeling burdened by them. It’s a learning process, but you have to surround yourself with good people who’ll call you out and guide you if you screw up.
You don’t know anything. There’s a reason that the real name of “bears” is taboo in many cultures. Just the act of saying its true name made the ancients shit their pants in fear of accidently summoning one. Bears are no joke. They kill on a whim. You can’t reason with bears. You can’t plead with bears. Bears are equal opportunity killers. They kill men, women, children, trans, straight, queer, ponybros, attack helicopters all the same. Your only chance is to make yourself appear too much a hassle that they rather go eat something else. Let all these women and men who approve of the OP’s post be tested irl. See if they will sing the same tune.
I’ve been in the woods, alone, with bears in the same woods, countless times, and I clearly haven’t been eaten.
I mean, you even say in your post that being too much of a hassle to eat is all you need to do. Can’t say that any men I’ve ever talked to wanted to have less sex with me when I indicated I’m a hassle to eat.
Yeah I’ve gone hiking. I’m not like going to go pet the bear, I’m going to give it a huge ass berth and be grateful it won’t get angry at me for doing so
You are so whacky a person that this took genuine effort to determine whether or not it’s satire. I know when you typed that up it probably seemed hard hitting and effective, but I’m just imagining someone earnestly saying “You don’t know anything.” as an OPENER and I cannot stop laughing about it.
This seems like a slight mischaracterisation:
the possibility that they could potentially be considered threatening, by a completely uninformed third party nonetheless.
The statement is actually that the possiblity of men potentially doing something is so high or so severe that the average bear is preferable.
The rest of your post is opinion though, and if you genuinely believe that the average man is more likely to be dangerous than the average bear, I don’t think it’s possible to change your mind
If you genuinely believe that the average man is more likely to be dangerous than then average bear… that’s just statistics.
"The chances of being injured by a bear are approximately 1 in 2.1 million, according to the National Park Service. You are more likely to be killed by a bee than a bear, and way more likely to be killed by another human than by either bear or bee.
And when bear encounters do happen, they are most often nonviolent. Bears are as afraid of you as you are of them, and bears want to avoid humans at all costs. The most common outcome of a bear encounter is that the bear flees." https://www.idausa.org/campaign/wild-animals-and-habitats/bear-attack/
“One in five women in the United States experienced completed or attempted rape during their lifetime.” https://www.nsvrc.org/resource/2500/national-intimate-partner-and-sexual-violence-survey-2015-data-brief-updated-release And that’s not counting all sexual assault, and it’s not counting regular violence, just rape.
If that doesn’t change your mind, I don’t think it’s possible to change your mind because you’re not interested in facts.
Your entire post is inaccurate because it takes into account the frequency of being near a bear. Your chance of being injured by a bear greatly increases as you get near a bear.
The article is just about being in a forest. Not like you’re locked in a room with the bear. As my source says, the bear is likely to avoid you if they see you, so proximity doesn’t really matter.
Thank you for the response. It’s calm and well reasoned. I did some math, and it doesn’t support my position without assumptions, but I’m keeping it because it was effort and I think it’s helpful.
My main argument is that those stats have massive amount of bias due to the amount of men the average woman encounters vs the amount of bears a woman encounters. I think the actual likelihood of being attacked by a man in an encounter vs a bear is still a lot higher on the bear’s side, but I can’t find stats for that. Assuming a woman encounters 1000 different men a year and 1 bear (which I think is fair), changes my math to 0.008% for the bear vs 0.00014% for the man.
Taking UK stats. As I’m most familiar with them. 41 homicides were perpetrated by a strangers in 2023. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/homicideinenglandandwales/yearendingmarch2023#the-relationship-between-victims-and-suspects
Male population is 29.2 million as of the latest UK census. https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/uk-population-by-ethnicity/demographics/male-and-female-populations/latest/
Do the math assuming all homicides were committed by men. Is a 0.00014% chance of a male killing a stranger.
The US has approx 900,000 wild bears plus maybe another 100,000 brown bears (cannot find a clear source for this). So lets call it an even 1 million. https://wildlifeinformer.com/black-bear-population-by-state/
According to your article on bears, there have been 4 deaths in the last 50 years. So averaging 0.08 deaths a year.
Which is 0.000008% chance of a bear having killed a person that year.
deleted by creator
Removed by mod
Yeah I’m not afraid of Jewish people by nature though? You’ve just typed some antisemitic bullshit trying to assert… what exactly?
To show you how hateful your shit is. You are a bigot. Accept it.
Hateful towards who, rapists? Let’s be real explicit with what you’re trying to weasel here.
Now you’re saying all men are rapists? Interesting.
Fucking obviously that’s not what I’m saying, you’re not that dense. Just say #notallmen and start harassing someone else. I didn’t realize I was communicating with an actual clown this whole time.
No, that is what you’re saying. You started with choosing the bear because you said men are dangerous, then when it was shown how hateful what you said is, you refused to acknowledge it and attempted to paint me as an anti-semite despite the fact that all I did was use your words. Now you’re saying you didn’t actually mean all men, you just meant rapists, as if using “men” interchangeably with “rapist” isn’t the core of the whole damn problem in the first place.
This is a Motte-and-Bailey argument and it’s bullshit. You are a hateful bigot. Admit it.
The bear would never pretend to be friendly to gain your trust, or pretend to fuck off and instead stalk you for days. I can more accurately surmise a bears intentions than i can for any random man because all the bear could possibly want out of me is a meager amount of food.
idk, as a man i’ve been toying with the idea of just being threatening at all times. I still don’t know how i feel about it at a philosophical level. But it keeps people away from me, and i don’t like people so.
But on the other hand it’s probably worse than just being a decent person to decent people? I don’t know. Sociology is complicated as fuck dude.
This is terrible logic to go by.
If you generalise half the population and insult them then of course people are going to be mad at you.
This is like some boomer saying “All feminists are easily offended lesbians that just like to shout out people”
Then smugly being like “haha you proved my point” when a femininst rightly takes issue with that statement.
This is also an indicator of the world’s best insult as per the comic Basic Instructions:
“I find you argumentative and easily offended.”
Basically no one is allowed to respond to it.
“I’m sorry you feel that way. I hope you get the therapy you need some day”
“How you find me has nothing to do with the conservation. Anyway, conditioner is better.”
Can’t a simple answer be: “You’re wrong” ?
This is like some boomer saying “All feminists are easily offended lesbians that just like to shout out people”
Then smugly being like “haha you proved my point” when a femininst rightly takes issue with that statement.
Worse than that even, as feminists are less than half the population and an ideology you choose to belong to, rather than a demographic you are born into.
If you generalise half the population and insult them then of course people are going to be mad at you.
As a random man I don’t feel insulted by this at all. I would also rather be in the woods with a random bear than a random man. The bear is more predictable in preferring to have nothing to do with me.
I would also rather be in the woods with a random bear than a random man.
Theres literally no way you genuinely believe this right?
I literally expanded on my reasons in the other reply.
There are literally a bunch of posts from other people explaining their reasons for preferring random bear as well.
The fact that a random man can be told multiple times “I don’t know you well enough to be comfortable with this,” with explanations, and they will still respond with “there’s no way you actually mean the words you are saying” is a big contributing factor.
What do you think will happen if you tell the bear you arnt comfortable with being attacked
It’s very possible to communicate to a bear that you aren’t threatening them and that you aren’t prey or worth attacking. I recommend looking up “what to do if you encounter a bear in the woods.”
It seems to be very difficult to communicate to you that I would be uncomfortable encountering you alone in the woods.
So yes, the bear is probably a better listener.
Cool. But I really think your reasons are complete bullshit.
Like take your last paragraph, you actually think that because some men don’t listen to reasonable arguments you would rather be with a violent and wild animal that is physically incapable of listening to reason?
Seriously you’re either actually insane or you’re just bullshiting to try and prove a point that you’ve already committed to without actually thinking it through.
you would rather be with a violent and wild animal that is physically incapable of listening to reason?
No, that’s why I’d rather be with the bear.
You seem to be really angry about some rando’s opinion on a hypothetical situation. That’s not normal.
Bears generally aren’t violent unless you threaten them. People survive seeing bears in the woods all the time, and once they are out of that situation they generally don’t have to worry that the bear is stalking them.
I’m not angry, I’m incredulous that you either think I’m dumb or you’re completely braindead. There’s a difference.
People survive seeing bears in the woods *all the time
I absolutely 1,000,000 guarantee people survive seeing men more often than they survive seeing a bear.
I absolutely 1,000,000 guarantee people survive seeing men more often than they survive seeing a bear.
And we’re moving the goalposts. Note how the article, and my post, specified in the woods and you have changed the situation to include: In public. Places with good lighting. Lots of people around. Easy access to law enforcement. People you personally know (and therefore not random).
I absolutely 1,000,000 guarantee people get attacked by men more often than they get attacked by bears.
i think i would probably be more concerned if i were alone in the woods with a woman honestly, like what the fuck did i do to be put in that situation? Why am i here at all? Is this an act of god?
Being alone in the woods in it of itself would be fucking weird, but a lot less fucking weird that being alone with someone else for some reason.
You’re walking through the woods and at the end of a clearing you see: either a man, or a bear staring right at you.
Which one makes you more uncomfortable?If I slowly leave the area I’m fairly confident the bear will leave me alone and not follow. I’m spending the rest of my time in the woods wondering if that man is following me.
i would certainly be more perplexed by a human just existing out there, a bear being out there would definitely make a lot of sense, i suppose it matters if either one of them has spotted me.
If neither spots me it doesn’t matter. If one spots me, who’s to fucking say what happens. Could be your local mountain man out there just vibin on his own time, could be your local serial killer up to some shit, who knows!
i would certainly be more perplexed by a human just existing out there
In this scenario you are also “just existing out there.”
Could be your local mountain man out there just vibin on his own time, could be your local serial killer up to some shit, who knows!
And that is the entire point. The article didn’t say “any man” it said “a random man”. Could go either way, who knows? With the bear it’s far more certain it just wants to leave you alone.
In this scenario you are also “just existing out there.”
i mean yeah, but if i was just existing out there alone that would be fucking weird. But only just fucking weird. If i was out there but WITH someone else, i would be REALLY fucking confused.
And that is the entire point. The article didn’t say “any man” it said “a random man”. Could go either way, who knows? With the bear it’s far more certain it just wants to leave you alone.
obviously. I wonder what the statistics would be though. Since it’s a “random” person, i wonder how likely you would actually be to get a shitty person. Bear stats are even harder though. So it’s not even like you could compare it.
people often sight that 1 in 3 woman experience sexual assault (i think that’s the correct phrasing) but that’s a basic collective stat. And given the fact that it’s just a random man. I would have to assume the chances of getting someone who isn’t going to fuck your shit up is pretty good. I’d be surprised if it was less than 50% frankly. Now when it comes to bears, there are a few bears, but assuming black bears, grizzly bears, and brown bears, black bears are pretty chill from what i’ve heard. Grizzly bears tend to be problematic. Brown bears are generally docile, but can be temperamental apparently. So for statistical simplicity we’ll just say you’ve got a 25% chance of getting cocaine bear’d because likewise, the bear doesn’t know why it’s there. I would feel like if you were to select a man at random from society, you’ve probably got equal to marginally better chances. I mean you’d have to get a pretty fucked up individual to just throw them in there and the first thing they decide to do is commit rape, or worse.
And presumably there aren’t any established rules for how you got there, i like to think of it as if you were just teleported there, and i suppose that’s unrealistic, but the alternative is walking into the forest with a fucking bear lmao. Or just being in a forest while a bear is also in the forest, and at that point, i don’t think it would make a difference anymore. Given that you’re likely to be too far away from each other to be an immediate danger. So i’m presuming we’re just dropped within visual/hearing distance of each other.
but naturally, that’s not the point of this thought experiment. The whole point is to make a point, because it’s actually a bit of societal quip more than anything. But i like thinking about this shit like a thought experiment because i prefer to not think about being murdered generally.
Also here’s a fucking nitpick if i’ve ever had one “any” is literally a synonym to “random” Any is quite literally describing “any one of these things that you could possibly select will do the job” and random is quite literally" pick one of them, at random, in a mathematical sense" So from the point of the argument, they mean the same thing.
I havent read the article, but from the heading and the teaser of it it seems to be a personal opinion piece of what she would prefer and asking other women about it.
Where exactly does she actively insult all men?
Where exactly does she actively insult all men?
The part about saying she would prefer being alone in the woods with an animal that would maul and eat her alive than being with [insert trait you were born with].
If you don’t think it’s insulting, switch out the word “men” with gay/jew/trans or any other group of people and ask if those people would feel insulted.
It’s a statement that very likely would be removed by moderators and gotten you banned on certain instances on Lemmy if you did. I honestly don’t believe you’re asking that question in good faith.
I can’t say that I blame her and I’m a guy. Besides, you know she’s just being over the top to make a point. Take five seconds, look at what she’s really saying and stop looking for reasons to be angry at her.
I was merely replying to the other person who seemed to be arguing in bad faith.
I don’t really have much interest the online gender debate. From the few tidbits I’ve seen, it’s not a healthy debate and it doesn’t align with anything I’ve seen in real life in Norway.
You yourself have completely ignored the argument you’re responding to in order to chastise about arguing with a bad take.
It’s looping upon itself and it all starts with one bad take. Maybe you can accept bad faith arguments are bad and move on?
Boo fucking hoo.
It sure is hard being a man, amirite? /s
It’s too big of a group to generalise. Your seemingly utter lack of understanding will only help drive the wedge between the genders even further.
It’s genuinely sad to see how annoyed and bitter some of my older male relatives have become due to people like you acting as if only 1 gender matter. Back in the days they would have called themselves feminists, but now their perception is that that group hates them instead.
Okay, let’s reframe this to be about a different specific group.
Let’s say this woman wrote this exact same opinion piece, but instead of it being about men in general, it was about black men specifically.
And she is just saying that she would rather take her chances with a wild animal than be alone with a black man. Is that perfectly okay and not insulting/demanding to black men in your eyes?
deleted by creator
The issue with your example is that black men are not in a position of power in society
Power by demographic association is bullshit. Cletus in the trailer park does not wield societal power because a majority of members of Congress are the same color and sex as he is, because they don’t work to protect his sex or color - they work to protect their own economic class and that of their donors/owners.
The trick is that you can’t take each demographic axis and declare that there is a hierarchy there where one group is the “oppressor” and thus has power over all members of the other groups who are deemed the “oppressed”. And usually the whole point of doing so is to try to fit it into a model of Marxist class conflict, which is only really a passable model for economic class (and accordingly only works for other demographic axis to the degree that they correlate with economic class). There are lots of areas where reality violates the fuck out of said hierarchies, and it leads to either attempts to excuse it or bullshit around it that I like to liken to the epicycles and deferents once used to shoehorn geocentric models of the solar system back into line with observations.
, while men (as a whole) are the dominant gender in society.
Hell, look at criminal justice - for nearly every measure where the system appears to favor white over blacks and you would probably call it racist, it also appears to favor women over men (usually to a similar or larger degree) but you would likely not call it sexist because that violates the hierarchy by putting women over men.
Education is similar, there are studies suggesting that teachers preferentially grade in favor of girls (specifically showing that girls get better grades for similar work but that difference vanishes in standardized testing where the grader cannot consider the sex of the student). Girls outnumber boys in both entering higher education and getting degrees, and have since something like the early 80s - yet we still maintain preferential scholarships and recruitment opportunities for women as opposed to men - usually by just deciding the only fields worth worrying about are the few that remain male dominated.
By what metrics do men dominate society?
deleted by creator
But, I mean, are you acquainted with said bear?
Are you on terms with each other’s intentions?
'Cause if you’re in the woods with a stranger, there is a 50 percent chance you’re going to have a bad time. Human or bear.
Stupid city folk. Comparing a BEAR with a honeybear…
A bear predictably would rather have nothing to do with me. If I treat a random bear with respect it will be more likely to treat me with respect than a random man.
I dk, did it have any cocaine or do I have food on me?
Though that would also apply to a human.
See, the difference is that the OP didn’t use the word “all” anywhere. If you’re not one of the untrustworthy men, then it isn’t about you.
Would you accept this logic about any other group like that?
if someone said “Black people are thieves” then when you called them out they said “I didnt say ALL black people are thieves. If you’re one of the good ones, then its not about you.” would you just accept that as a perfectly reasonable statement or would you still call them racist?
If someone has been frequently harassed and endangered only by black people, I’m not going to tell them they can’t be cautious of black people.
Bruh
so you believe racism is/can be justified?
No. But I’m also not going to undermine other people’s lived experience like that.
Having something stolen from you most likely isn’t going to leave you scarred for life. And men are not, and have never been, an oppressed group. People who say “black people are thieves” say that because they are racist and want to veil their bigotry. Women who say “I’m scared of men” say that because they most likely have had negative experiences with them and understand that they are physically weaker than them.
Having something stolen from you most likely isn’t going to leave you scarred for life.
Okay change it to mugged or beaten then? You know the point I’m making and purposely focusing on minor details instead of that actual point doesn’t make your case any stronger.
and have never been, an oppressed group
I’m not claiming they are. If you’re going to argue with me, then please argue against what I’m actually saying, nit whatever strawman you need to construct.
Women who say “I’m scared of men” say that because they most likely have had negative experiences with them and understand that they are physically weaker than them.
Imma trust you’re an intelligent person and let you work out what’s wrong with this one yourself.
The people complaining that she is being derogatory to men are the same people who would say “what do you expect going into the woods alone with a strange man? What did you think would happen?”
Imagine the stupid Pence Rule (never be alone with a woman who isn’t your wife). And framing it as you’d rather be alone with a velociraptor than a strange woman because a velociraptor is less likely to falsely accuse you of something.
I get that the point of the joke is that women think men are dangerous, but any nuance or discussion is completely out the window due to how stupid and inflammatory the framing is
I would also like to add, actually educating people about average bear behaviour would help.
Most bears will flee if given a choice, and are very unlikely to attack. Globally, there’s only around 40 bear attacks a year, and less than 5% are deadly. A lot of how they react is driven by how the encounter starts, if you’re within 60m before it notices you, you’re significantly more likely to be attacked.
Meaning that seeing a bear from a distance off is basically always just going to be neat and maybe a nice photo.
They are huge dangerous creatures, but so are people, and they’d rather not take the risk.
Knowing that makes the argument a bit more reasonable than just pointing out how bad/unpredictable men are
Posts bait. Catches idiots. Stays relevant.
I’d generally pick a bear too, most of the time you could just walk away. A human might try to talk to me or something.
My first thought would be “maybe we can be friends”
With the bear, obviously
Maybe it’s because i’m a man, but this trend saddens me. I don’t often see what the other gender thinks of us, but the fact that a big part of us are a bother that all off us should be seen as more dangerous than a bear. Damn…
It’s because casual misandry is socially acceptable.
Not entirely. It’s also because men have historically been bad about telling creepy and misogynistic men to back off and shut the fuck up.
I would sooner see men step up and call out the bad actors – and I say that as a man who’s done so. Don’t teach your daughters that they need to be wary about what they wear, teach your sons to respect and not rape women.
I would sooner see men step up and call out the bad actors
And I would be happy to join you in doing this, but this is not the company I keep. In my life I can barely count the number of times I have, or could have, on one hand. Meanwhile, when talking to women about this sort of thing, everyone has awful stories but they all involve people that simply are not a part of their social sphere (and by extension mine) anymore.
I fear that we, as a society, have done such a good job of pushing bad actors out to the margins that we no longer have eyes on the problem.
It’s not even just that they’re at the margins, it’s also a math problem. One bad actor can sexually harass hundreds, perhaps even thousands of women over the course of many years. Now make that thousands of men, and see how it’s very reasonable that 1 in 2 women or whatever it is have been sexually harassed or assaulted - and that can still be less than 1% of the male population doing it. Anyone who doubts women get harassed or even assaulted often needs to have their head examined. There is a guy in my neighborhood currently who has not been caught who is following women while in his car. The neighborhood listservs are awash with women who have noticed this guy. There was another guy who was groping women on the trail who affected multiple women before they caught him.
And this is not just sex crimes. Recently, they arrested a group of car thieves/car jackers in my area. The four of them were responsible for over two hundred car thefts, and possibly up to three hundred additional unaccounted for crimes. And that’s for a very visible crime like stealing a car - imagine the numbers for something like groping someone on a crowded train or bus.
This is why people who say stuff like, “just teach men not to rape” are as insane as saying “just teach minorities not to steal cars”. It is a tiny portion of the population having an outsized influence because they can harm multiple people. When you start blaming a group for the actions of a tiny portion of that group, you’re just lost.
I mean sure, call out crime in general when you see it, but I have seen this type of harassment probably a dozen times in my life. And it happens all around, dozens of times a day.
This is also the same kind of unintuitive math that makes it likely that your friends will be more popular than you… because popular friends are more likely to know you than unpopular friends.
You know I didn’t think about it like this. It does make sense though. I think as well it’s good to point out that the main recipients of violence and murder are other men, not women. Therefore I am suspicious when women talk about these things and being afraid but men don’t. It seems like a double standard.
Your neighborhood has a listserv? I haven’t seen one in ages.
Part of the problem is that men are simply not on alert for bad behavior. They have the luxury of being unaware. When my friend’s dad groped me at a party, I was in a conversation circle with him and 3 of my male friends. None of them noticed him doing it, none of them noticed me going stiff and pale. None of them questioned why I suddenly felt sick and immediately called an Uber to leave.
The dad felt totally comfortable to do that literally less than 2 feet from three other men because you guys aren’t looking out for it in a way that women are. Alternatively, I’ve had stranger women come up to me in public to ask me if I’m uncomfortable because a guy at a gas station is talking to me while I pump my gas. We’re looking out for each other.
“We all a society” have absolutely not pushed out bad actors. If anything, women have closed ranks, but in my experience the men have not, without explicit instruction, called out bad behavior.
Thank you for this insight. We all really need more of this kind of dialogue to build awareness around what to look for.
Men expect you to communicate if you have an issue, that is how we communicate. We’re busy looking for the next tough guy, suckerpuncher, or knife-wielding psycho because those are the kinds of scars we bear. We’re not going to be looking at subtle changes in the color of your skin in a dark bar.
That’s a really good point. The men who could call out this behavior are usually in exclusive circles from the bad actors.
As I think about it, I really haven’t had many opportunities either. There’s only one that really stands out to me, and it’s when I was out with some friends drinking and we were getting some food to end the night. A stranger was moving to grope a friend of mine, and I shut that down quickly.
But that’s it. This is actually a bit of a difficult question. How exactly do we chastise the bad actors? Maybe the best we can do is teach the next generation, and just call it out when we do see it.
Well no, the real root cause is a lot of women are afraid of creepy men. Your point is tertiary at best is people are actually picking the bear.
You’re missing the definition of root cause-why are women afraid of creepy men?
But that wasn’t the question.
perfectly balanced, as all things should be, which is a really fucking weird statement, considering that most thing should not be balanced, but then again, maybe the state of non balance is the equivalent to balanced. Which would then equate everything to be perfectly balanced at all times on account of the self balancing dichotomy.
(for those wondering, the comment im replying to has 5 upvotes, and 5 downvotes, and same for the one reply to this comment, at the time of writing at least.)
Men in real life (in my experience) are mostly lovely folks. Men in places like Lemmy and Reddit can be pretty decent too, depending on the thread. But honestly, at what point has it been ‘safe’ to self identify as a woman on the wider Internet? Like to have a female voice in a game chat? Or in a random chat room? Between a lot of online harassment (which only needs a small slice of men participating in to be felt much more broadly) and the political and cultural attempts to strip women of power, I get this kind of outlook happening. It just really fucking sucks.
Please keep in mind that this is one columnist writing clickbait, not the entirety of women.
What species of bear? Because that makes a lot of difference.
Somewhere between gummy and grizzly
Somewhere between gummy and *polar
I would not want to meet a polar bear in a forest
Global warning: soon coming to your location.
I think I’d actually feel safe with a polar bear in the kind of forest I’m used to. It’ll heat stroke out in no time
Gay lumberjack bear.
Oh I’m friends with several. I’d bring some picnic supplies
Those sound pretty safe for a woman TBF
Also, is it smarter than the average bear?
I wouldn’t trust a man with a pic-a-nic basket either
Just once I would like to open one of these threads and not see a bunch of lemmites embarrassing themselves by deliberately misinterpreting something.
Yeah, I was kinda hoping for better when I posted. Seems like many of the sons who need this talk are on here.
Its disparaging to an entire gender. I would argue lots of people need many talks. Lots of evil out there and many of it goes unnoticed or is accepted due to current cultural climate. Including passive aggressive disparaging questions meant to vilify men.
I’d say we’re right to be disparaged against, up until we get our collective act together as men. Women should be wary of us for the simple fact that it aids in their survival. A comment like hers is at the very bottom of my list of things to change.
Honestly, I know you mean we’ll but I find statements like this extremely dangerous and damaging.
There isn’t some ‘international council of men’ that could collectively sort anything out. Ideas like blaming the whole gender is part of the reason why we have a rise in far-right sentiment among young men, as it’s easy to feel like the world is against you for things that you personally have no say in. Young men (just like anyone else) need support, and not to be blamed for bad-behavior of others!
Instead it’s up to those of us (the vast majority) who don’t represent toxic masculinity to set a compassionate example
Women are going to be wary for as long as they have reason to. You’re essentially just stating that we shouldn’t talk about this fact because it hurts the feelings of men who were probably part of the problem to begin with. It’s on those men to listen to the feedback and internalize it, not on women to keep their opinions to themselves.
They didn’t say that at all. What they are trying to express is that stereotypes, such as “men are usually dangerous to women”, or “women should fear men just in case”, are disingenuous ideas that harm both sides.
Some men are good people and some are bad. Some women are good people and some are bad.
Condemning either group for the actions of a few perpetuates the stereotype by making impressionable indiviuals on both sides of the equation start accepting the “complimentary” stereotypes just because they observe a few correlations from time to time.
Before long, critical thinking goes out the window, correlation is assumed to be causation and you’ve got men reacting aggressively to posts that say they are dangerous and women saying “I chose the bear!” even though they know that is staticallyess safe because it aligns with the message they think they need to share because they buy into the same stereotype the men did and vice versa.
It runs parallel to the same sort of thing playing out in politics around the world though it’s certainly more pronounced in the US thanks to the two party system and volume of communication.
Talking about the issue is fine but this discourse is flawed. Imagine how it would play out if the question was “white people, would you rather be stranded on a island with a black person or an alligator?”
And now your argument would be “white people should be afraid of black people until they are given a reason not to be.”
Doesn’t that sound really messed up to say? I hope so because it felt bad just to type out for the purpose of this comparison.
Each person is an individual unto themselves and I think if you can agree with that, then there is no rationale that can support group stereotypes in human psychology.
I do understand the point you’re making, but the example in the OP has more layers to me than strictly speaking about a bear vs. a man.
It shouldn’t take an incredible leap in logic to ascertain that the comparison is meant to present simply that “men are dangerous to women”. Actually picking the bear is evocative hyperbole. All any man would need to take from this is “I should strive not to make women feel this way”.
If a man takes this sentiment personally and then becomes a threat to a woman, that man is interpreting in bad faith and in fact wants to threaten women. We have a system of patriarchy precisely because men feel superior to women, and women have little they can do about it. I’d wager these angry men were going to find their excuse to exercise their superiority regardless of what a woman says. This rift exists without anyone else’s help, regardless of if you want to accept that’s what it is. We need more clueless yet compassionate men to understand a woman’s struggle, not less. If we pretend that there aren’t a worrying number of dangerous men, we are those dangerous men.
I could write excessively about how a white person describing a black person as dangerous is far and away a completely different conversation from this, but I don’t want to expend the characters. Tiniest tl;dr, the power dynamics and history are not the same (they’re roughly inversed, in fact), and your example has a legitimately sinister reason to happen. It’s far from a 1:1 comparison.
Condemning either group for the actions of a few
Is not what Kate Lister or feminist in general are doing. They’re saying that they are afraid of being alone with a man, this is just how they feel.
they observe a few correlations from time to time
Here in France, 96% of sexual assaults are performed by men. I don’t think you could find a country where the statistic goes the other way. “a few correlations from time to time” really doesn’t reflect the reality of the situation. It’s not some correlation, it’s a systemic issue in our society.
Before long, critical thinking goes out the window, correlation is assumed to be causation and you’ve got men reacting aggressively to posts that say they are dangerous and women saying “I chose the bear!” even though they know that is staticallyess safe because it aligns with the message they think they need to share because they buy into the same stereotype the men did and vice versa.
I actually agree that critical thinking goes out the window ! “I chose the bear!” is meant to express that women are afraid of men. The fact that most women would actually be terrified of an encounter with a bear or that they are statistically safer with a man than with a bear is irrelevant. Women want to send a message and instead of listening, you are correcting them on a technicality.
Talking about the issue is fine but this discourse is flawed.
The fact that you are only talking about the discourse and not the actual problem makes me wonder if you really want the issue to be resolved
Imagine how it would play out if the question was “white people, would you rather be stranded on a island with a black person or an alligator?”
This is a terrible comparison. When woman say they are afraid of men, it’s a dominated group being afraid of its dominators. With your black perso/alligator question, it’s a case of dominators being afraid of a group its dominating.
deleted by creator
We have to keep trying. Speaking as a black American who knows America’s history with black people, it’s important that we don’t give up just because we haven’t succeeded yet. Change of this magnitude takes a proportional amount of time.
Yep. “Not all _____” just sidesteps the point and tries to make it all about you. When someone not of my demographic says people in my demographic are hurting them, it’s time for me to shut up and listen. It’s not about me.
The sad part is, you can tell some of them understand the point being made. But are either over reacting and making this about gender warfare. Or taking the scenario seriously, and trying to mock it that way.
Seriously OP, what did you expect by posting the textbook a example of a clickbait article?
That at least one comment would get that men need to start challenging other men to get this problem solved?
How does hyperbole help foster an open conversation?
I’m male, though I consider myself non-conforming, for context. I’ve ridden home on the metro with coworkers in their thirties because it’s 8 PM and they don’t feel safe - and I have friends that are SA survivors. The difference in perception is absolutely something to be aware of and if you think most women can enjoy a nice 3 AM walk without massive anxiety you’re clearly out of touch.
This is an important conversation to have and it’s important to be more aware of what gestures we might make that can be perceived as threatening, however, this article was posed with such a hyperbolic title that it won’t ever spur those conversations. Were the misogynistic assholes that responded with “You’re gonna wish you had a man” to the author assholes? Absolutely. But even a charitable reading of the title doesn’t yield a helpful place to start a conversation.
Thank you to the men in the comments who react like humans with empathy!
But god damn there are a lot of people on this thread that are taking this VERY personally.
-
Nobody is denying that men in our society deserve to be respected, nobody is saying IF YOU’RE A MAN FUCK YOU ID RATHER BE MAULED, and nobody is saying that women are always right no matter what.
-
Of course the man could be weaker/not a threat. Of course he should be assumed safe. Of course everyone should respect all genders. And, OF COURSE, some women lie about rape! Yes! You do in fact have valid concerns!
HOWEVER, It is really shitty some people commenting decide to take a clear example with obvious intentions and then make it about themselves, and then abuse women in the comments… you are proving the point, and in fact, you are a huge red flag already.
This question already sets the scene, you are alone in the woods: there is a strange man OR you are alone in the woods: there is a strange bear. The man’s intentions (AND the bear’s intentions) is not clear, we only know that he is there, and he is strange. No need to make up reasons why the guy is OK, minding his business, etc. Because in the situation given, the point of the question was to ask people how they would feel lost in the woods with a man or a bear, with such a small amount of information!
The question is trying to shed light on WHY the women asked said they prefer the bear. Do they think every man -at all- is a threat? Do they think that all men will overpower and harm them"because all men want to use their strength to rape/hurt women" because they are "biologically meant to*?* and, then, where do the fears come from and what can we do to change that? Why assume the worst when everything could be just fine?
I wish people would react more like “this is very depressing, and I understand why women are sometimes afraid of men in situations out of their control” or "I am doing my part to be a safe man ". But ask yourself, “do I know someone that would clearly make a woman feel unsafe to be around?” You might know more than one person like this, and they are why we talk about this in the first place.
The best way I’ve ever heard to describe this fear women live with is this: "when I approach a bees nest, it is highly unlikely they will attack me, they are usually docile!. That does not mean I won’t try to avoid being stung. "
-
Ah just what we need, more gender warfare, rather than focusing on the 1% who increase inflation and make wars, and steal your paychecks.
Our society is f*cked
Mostly by the likes of iNews who are giving up the opportunity to report some actual news, in favor of whatever the hell this is.
If you don’t fuck with the bear, the bear probably won’t fuck with you. Just steer clear of it you’ll be fine.
Humans on the other hand, could do anything.
I mean is the bear hungry or the man horny? These are critical questions.
I mean is the bear hungry or the man horny? These are critical questions.
The fact that those two are given equal weight in your post speaks volumes.
A bear won’t eat you unless it’s a polar bear or almost starving to death.
I’m a strange man and I’d rather be with the bear too
The bear is more predictable and would rather have nothing to do with me.
Well…I’m a strange bear, so… What’re we gonna do about it?
Probably not your user name, for starters.
I mean, do I know if the bear is hungry? What type of bear? I’d take a well fed black bear over a random person, they ain’t gonna fuck with you. Pretty much any other scenario and I ain’t messing with the bear.
Water bear. Ravenously hungry.
Awh. Cute lil guy
A spectacled bear that has eaten his fill of marmalade sandwiches.
Though honestly same could be said about the man in question, is he nice or hostile, can he control his urges or not, is he stable or a complete psycho. This question really goes both ways
The same could be said by both the man and the bear about Kate. So this question goes three ways.
Yeah but a well fed black bear isn’t going to try to make small talk
Neither will a socialy anxious person… Or a mute
Gummy bear. It’s not hungry, but you are.
If I mer another man in the woods I would say hi and walk by. Bears are fucking dangerous. I really dont understand why all of you are so afraid of other people.
Met a bunch of bears, never been attacked. Shrug
Been mugged 4 times by people, tho. A few others attempted.
I’ll take my chances with the bear.
Damn, you’ve only met four people in your life, and all of them mugged you?
Can you show me where I’ve said that? Also 0 out of 10 is still less than 4 out of 8 billion. And I haven’t met most people.
Because the women who answered bear on the survey have extreme contempt for men. They see men as evil predators and not people.
Black bears are less dangerous than nearly every other larger mammal. They are terrified of everything and not violent. Grizzly attacks are caused by you being perceived as a threat, if given the perceived option, most grizzly bears will run away. Fatal attacks are far more rare than people think 3 in all of north america in the last year. Humans are far far more dangerous to encounter.
As someone who hikes the Canadian Rockies on the regular, I can tell you statistically I’ve walked by thousands of people on the trails and maybe 3 grizzlies. The grizzlies were far more likely to attack but due to distance and spotting them early to avoid there was no issue.
The grizzlies were far more likely to attack but due to distance and spotting them early to avoid there was no issue.
They are not more likely to attack, you just perceive them that way. As long as you don’t do something that makes them feel threatened you are statistically in far more danger around the humans you cross paths with. I don’t remember where I read it, but even with the tiny amount of bear attack, even those attacks are most often the result of human fear causing humans to be aggressive and then lose the fight they started. For instance a hunter with a gun may get scared, shoot the grizzly, and then hit it without a fatal shot. They just created a danger that wasn’t there. “Fear is the mind killer”.
Way too many men are fucking dangerous. At least the bear won’t rape you.
